Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.

97-113

JOSEPH RATZINGER’S THEOLOGICAL HERMENEUTICS FOR

CHRISTIANS’ FAITH ENHANCEMENT: AN APPRAISAL

Ilesanmi G. Ajibola
Department of Theology
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pa
gabajibola@gmail.com
+1 412 251 7846

Abstract
The question of who Jesus is often arouses cognitive as well as affective responses that
have far reaching influences on people‟s faith. The category of those who subscribe to the
affective mode with foot in systematized cognitive investigation of the question often
experience what Ratzinger refers to as “a clutching of the air”1 in an attempt to form a
relationship with Jesus. In other words, the role of modern biblical critical method of
studying the Gospels, with its characteristic scientific approach to the question of who
Jesus is, is said to often create a gap between belief and practice. Among scholars who
have attempted to bridge such a gap are Rudolf Schnackenburg and Joseph Ratzinger.
The latter has attempted a theological and spiritual hermeneutics in approaching the
question. The general intent of this paper is an appraisal of his method for reading the
gospels as highlighted in two of his writings: Jesus of Nazareth and "Biblical
Interpretation in Crisis”. While the central effort of the paper is to evaluate the adequacy
or otherwise of Ratzinger‟s model for Christians‟ faith enhancement, the guiding question
shall be what possibility such method has in ameliorating the “danger of clutching the air”
and in establishing an “intimate friendship with Jesus” through the gospels.

Keywords: Historical Jesus, Modern Biblical Critical Methods, Joseph Ratzinger,

Theological Hermeneutics, Faith Enhancement.

Introduction
Cognitive answers and affective responses to the question of who Jesus
is, have hitherto varied with either mode of reactions occasionally influencing the
other. Often, the influence of the cognitive answers, especially in its critical mode
has had a far reaching negative influence on the faith of people in the latter
category. Those in the latter category often demonstrate a faith-based response to
the question of who Jesus is; however, they may sometimes experience what
Joseph Ratzinger2 refers to as “clutching at thin air”3 in an attempt to form a
relationship with Jesus using the former category.
The expression “clutching at thin air” is metaphoric. Although Ratzinger
did not explain in any specific term his usage of the expression, it would appear
from such usage in connection with establishing “intimacy with Jesus”, to refer to
an elusive creedal tenacity where an "intimate friendship with Jesus" (of the
97
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

Gospels) is difficult to obtain. This interpretation coheres with George Weigel‟s

view of the expression in his “Book Excerpt on „Jesus of Nazareth‟”.4 Therein
George implies the same connotation as implied in this paper. He wrote:
Benedict XVI is no reactive anti-modern. He readily and gratefully
acknowledges that, thanks to historical-critical scholarship, we know much
more, today, about the different literary genres of the Bible; about the ways in
which a Gospel writer's intent affected his portrait of Jesus; about the theological
struggles within early Christianity that shaped a particular Christian community's
memory of its Lord. The difficulty is that, amidst all the knowledge gained in the
biblical dissecting room, the Jesus of the Gospels has tended to disappear, to be
replaced by a given scholar's reconstruction from the bits and pieces left on the
dissecting room floor. And that makes "intimate friendship with Jesus" much
more difficult, not just for scholars, but for everyone.5

The description of George at clarifying “clutching at thin air” in relation

to establishing “intimate friendship with Jesus” results from attempts at a
relationship with Jesus in spite of taking the “Jesus of the Gospel” to a „dissecting
room‟ via modern biblical critical method. To put the point in perspective, one
wonders how “to love and respect what you are being taught to dissect."6 Such a
relationship portends a gap between using the gospels, for example, to establish a
personal relationship with Jesus and using such tools as the historical critical
method to break the sources of required information into pieces.
Different Scholars have attempted various ways by which a faith-based
understanding of Jesus and an understanding from a dissected source could be
bridged.7 For example, Rudolf Schnackenburg who Ratzinger said was “probably
the most prominent Catholic exegete writing in German during the second half of
the twentieth century,”8 was concerned about the “the believing Christians who
today have been made insecure by scientific research and critical discussion.”9
His effort at bridging this gap is the theme of his Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical
Christology. While Ratzinger considers this work as “one last great work,” he felt
that Schnackenburg‟s “account of the figure of Jesus” in the book “suffers from a
certain unresolved tension because of the constraints of the method he feels
bound to use, despite its inadequacies.”10In fact for Ratzinger all previous
attempts to resolve the crisis surrounding faith due to the methodologies applied,
“have produced a common result: the impression that we have very little certain
knowledge of Jesus and that only at a later stage did faith in his divinity shape the
image we have of him.”11As an alternative, Ratzinger offers a medium through
which the crisis may be resolved namely, a theological and spiritual
hermeneutics. What is intended in this paper is an appraisal of this method as
embedded in two of his writings as a model for reading the gospels.12 To situate
the discussion in proper context, the paper casts a general look at the concept of
hermeneutics as a step to examining Ratzinger‟s theological hermeneutics. The
paper is guided by the question of adequacy of such method in establishing
“intimate friendship with Jesus” through the gospels.
98
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

Background to the Problem

Reading Ratzinger,13 one gets the impression that what is at the root of
the problem of the seeming incompatibility of historical critical method and
sustenance of faith is philosophical misappropriation. There is a transfer of
modern scientific worldview into biblical scholarship in such a way that historical
issues are being measured with the prism of modern philosophical categories.
Thus the question, “who is Jesus?” is often innocently conflict-ridden; yet it is a
question that cannot be avoided because of the significant interest and
implications that responses to it have on people‟s lives.
That there is a record of a Jew called Jesus, whose works and deeds were
mighty, and who was eventually tried, killed and resurrected is not so much often
disputed. This story forms the content of four Gospels in the New Testament and
is attested in other books of the New Testament. The point of dispute is the extent
to which these records are representative of what „actually‟ happened and how
much redaction went into them. In other words, are the Gospels historical
accounts of the Jesus event? Are the claims in the gospels actual representations
of what historically took place? Can one really get to the „historical by
scrutinizing the content and production of these records? If the answers to these
are in the negative, then of what value are the gospels? At the heart of matters
arising from such discourse is the problem of sustaining faith within the quagmire
of inquiries surrounding the question of faith; and historicity must be squarely
placed at the feet of the Christological foundational question of who Jesus is. The
question, „who is Jesus?‟ is not strange to efforts at an understanding of a Jew
whose story has effected a religion and in whom divine recourse is sought. It is
written in the Gospel that he had put the same question to his disciples who in
turn had told him how he is perceived.14 From that time, one dare say that the
answer to this seemingly simple question varies and reveals, in turn, variations in
Christologies that has affected how Jesus is perceived.
The early Christian communities defined Jesus in images that represent
different aspects of their faith in the mission and deeds of the Jesus they knew as
“Lord” and as “Savior”.15 Similarly, the medieval Christians through the
Renaissance maintained and preserved to a large extent the basic ways in which
the humanity and divinity of Jesus have been defined in the New Testament,
corroborated by the „gospels‟ eyewitnesses‟ and subscribed by the early church
fathers.16 The issue at stake, from much of this background until the last three
centuries was not profoundly about a systematic doubt of whether Jesus ever
existed or about attributing to him a divinity that he never claimed; much of that
became mostly evident with the penetration of the question of who Jesus is with a
radical rationalization that characterized a peculiar scholarship prevalent from the
17th century onwards, and signaled by the work of Hermann Samuel Reimarus
(1694 – 1768).
There are, of course, documented stories of the events of Jesus as in the
New Testament but also, that there is now much controversies concerning those
99
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

stories in modern New Testament scholarship is a truism. Thus, one must be

quick to acknowledge a basic difficulty in projecting a one clear and
unambiguous Christology using the New Testament. According to Thomas P.
Rausch, “while the New Testament is the most important source for our
knowledge of Jesus, the difficulty with using it as a starting point is that it offers
not one Christology, but many. The Synoptic Gospels present a very different
Jesus than the one that emerges in John.”17 This situation opens up the Jesus
debates to even more controversial outcomes. For instance, Rausch observed that
various kinds of Christologies emerged from the end of the New Testament
period and given that fact, “should we start methodologically with those
Christologies which emerged [at that period], or with those in the earlier books,
or with those even earlier that may lie behind the written texts?”18 There is a hint
here on the necessary implication of engaging scientific scholarly tools in making
such determination.19
Consequent on the dilemma arising from using the New Testament as the
single source for the Jesus debates, other sources were explored. Some of these
sources have been identified by Rausch as „the creeds and dogmas of the church‟,
„the faith of Christian people‟, „the historical-Critical approach‟, as well as
„Dialectical Christology‟. The attendant strength and problems associated with
each of these methods are well discussed in the book.20Other approaches include
the modern biblical method which includes the historical critical method.
The historical-critical method as an approach to our knowledge of Jesus
is of particular interest to this paper. While keeping in mind that in whatever way
within which this scientific (modern) critical effort is considered, there is always
a potential danger to the sustenance of the individual‟s faith of a Christian, this
paper shall in the following pages consider this approach in dialogue with
Ratzinger‟s views on its inadequacy for sustenance of the Christian faith.21It is
important to note that the position of the Ratzinger in the texts to be considered
betrays his pastoral and spiritual interest in his criticism of the historical-critical
method. Again, Ratzinger is not the first nor the only one to be interested in such
retrieval efforts as noted earlier in this paper; Schnackenburg did make the same
attempt.22 Ratzinger however felt that Schnackenburg was not successful. The
problem to be addressed then is what did he offer in place of such „failed‟23
efforts as Schnackenburg‟s? Is such an effort adequate for his purpose? And
possibly, how can such a result be put into concrete practice, if found successful?

The Historical-Critical Approach to Knowing Jesus

Simply stated, this approach states that the history underlying the Gospels
and the New Testament narratives are products of early Christians‟ faith and may
not be regarded as history in the modern conventional sense of history. This way
of referring to historical criticism may be considered too simplistic but it does
contain the basic ingredients to identify such an approach to the Jesus‟ study. It is
an attempt at sifting through the Gospels to retrieve a historical Jesus through the
100
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

use of “scientific tools of modern historical research.”24 The object of such

methodology, the “historical Jesus”, is “thus a scientific construct, a theoretical
abstraction of modern scholars that coincides only partially with the real Jesus of
Nazareth.”25 What this means is better appreciated when considered from the
point of views in which the method has been put into practical use.
Robert Price considers historical criticism as an exercise that largely
began “as an attempt to debunk the Christian religion as a pious fraud”26 where
“the gospels were seen as bits of priest-craft and humbug of a piece with the
apocryphal Donation of Constantine.”27 Of course, it depends on who is making a
review of the exercise, the works of scholars from Reimarus through Schweitzer
and Bultmann, wherein Jesus was no more than a mere „end-time‟ preacher with
perhaps some ideas of himself as a messiah, lends credence to what Price said.
What is evident in the enterprise is that the method seeks to focus on the
„historical‟ Jesus and a possible reconstruction of his life and times without any
attention to what such could mean spiritually or even theologically.

Ratzinger and the limits of Historical Criticism

The most concise view of Ratzinger on the relationship between
historical criticism and the faith of the believers is well presented in his “Biblical
Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of
Exegesis Today”. It was a lecture presented on the 27th of January 1988 at Saint
Peter's Church, New York.28 Highlights of the lecture present the historical
critical method of biblical criticism as setting “out with enormous optimism” at
the start.29At the beginning, according to Ratzinger, the method struck a different
cord from the Enlightenment constraint on the understanding of the Scriptures.
That initiative was refreshing in that “it seemed that we were finally going to be
able to hear again the clear and unmistakable voice of the original message of
Jesus.”30 However, according to Ratzinger optimism and beauty of the method
gradually dissipates to an extent that it „requires a radicalizing process‟.31 The
method becomes “confused” as it gradually raises “a visible fence that barred the
way to the Bible for the uninitiated”32 and for the initiated, he/she “no longer
reads the Bible, but dissects it into the elements from which it is supposed to have
grown.”33 Succinctly, according to Ratzinger the method is inadequate for the
very fact that „faith is not one of its components‟ and “God is not a factor in the
historical events with which it deals.”34 Furthermore, the method is primarily
concerned with past events with inherent methodological limitations that cannot
make the past present.35
From the above summary of Ratzinger‟s reservations on the historical-
critical method and for the purpose of this paper, two significant limitations
among others ought to be highlighted. First, to Ratzinger, the method “does not
exhaust the interpretative task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a
single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God,”36 and secondly, the method is
constrained by its own limits.37 On the second point, Ratzinger‟s view is that
101
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

historical method investigates the past and therefore, if it “remains true to itself
… the historical method not only has to investigate the biblical word as a thing of
the past, but also has to let it remain in the past.”38 The obvious implication of an
exclusive use of this method on the faith of Christians would therefore be rather
appalling. Such attempt will produce a doubt that put the Christian‟s “intimate
friendship with Jesus… in danger of clutching the air.”39
Ratzinger's stance identified above stems from the end results of
divergent portraits of Jesus by various re-constructionists through modern biblical
criticism. In other words, results derived from the use of such a method have
“become more and more incompatible with one another.”40 It is also a method
that does not respect biblical wholeness and continuity, but “dissects the Bible
into discontinuous individual parts.”41 It is by such maneuvering that those new
interpretations that are contrary to the bible's own intentions and are
“symptomatic of the decay of interpretation and hermeneutics”42 are possible. For
instance, an „analyses‟ of Scripture in terms of depth psychology‟ shows that the
“Scripture is being read contrary to its own intention.”43 In this statement, as in
many others, this paper perceives Ratzinger as saying that such method as the
historical criticism has produced a common result that leaves an “impression that
we have very little certain knowledge of Jesus.”44
The above conclusion points to the inadequacy of the historical critical
method to take on board the necessary and inseparable connection between the
Jesus that the method searches for in history, and the Christ of faith. By that fact,
a method that supposedly stands in “direct apprehension of the purely historical
can only lead to mistaken conclusions.”45 Ratzinger‟s Biblical Interpretation in
Conflict and the Jesus of Nazareth suggest his belief that any method that creates
a discontinuity between event and faith or history and God‟s interventions, cannot
appreciate the significant role of God who acts in history. Such a method is
problematic to faith enhancement. In solving such a problem, there is a need for a
method that establishes “the principle of the analogia scripturae on the basis of
the interior claim of the biblical text itself.”46 This is where Ratzinger‟s
theological hermeneutics comes in, since the modern biblical criticism is
incapable of the task.

Theological Hermeneutics
By definition, hermeneutics is understood by this paper to connote human
attempts at understanding „texts‟, where „texts‟ is not limited to written
documents but includes other objects of interpretations, such as persons or
painting. This understanding of hermeneutics is in line with Kevin Vanhoozer‟s
reference to „text‟ as “person, a poem, a play, or a painting.”47 In a rather broader
definition, Daniel Treier defines it as “effort to understand the nature of human
understanding.”48 Its form, according to him includes “understanding the
understanding of texts, or else all forms of understanding in terms of „texts‟”.49

102
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

Treier went further to identify two stages in the development of Christian

hermeneutics: the pre-modern and the modern stages. While the former relates
theological hermeneutics to “pre-critical models and to the Rule of Faith,
championed by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other patristic interpreters”50, the modern
“tried to overcome the ideological limitations of historicist interpretation of the
Bible.”51 In the second stage, Rudolf Bultmann, for example is referenced by
Treier as having “used supposedly historical criteria to separate faith from history
(which) in his particular Lutheran view, constitute reliance upon something
besides the word of God.”52 Significantly, the movement from the initial model to
the latter is characterized by a shift in focus on hermeneutics. It is a shift that
Treier identified in a movement “from the practice of textual interpretation to its
ontological possibility via human historicity.”53 From the ongoing, two
designations to theological hermeneutics may be identified:54
1. To develop an account of text interpretation or even human
understanding in interaction with Christian doctrine.
2. To develop an account of how biblical interpretation should shape, and
be shaped by Christian theology.
In the light of the above designations, doing theological hermeneutics
entails collaboration between exegetes (on text interpretation), and theologians
(of Christian theology). Although these functions are not mutually exclusive, the
exegete would probably be more concerned with certitudes of scripture and its
historical basis prior to the theologians‟ reflections on doctrines that flow from
the ensuing historical biblical witness. This is a consideration as this offers a
window to vent the views of Ratzinger where the exegete needs to be open to the
theologian‟s reflections in grasping the religious implication of what is analyzed.
In the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth, Ratzinger sees the nature of
authentic biblical exegesis as that which permits greater allowance of theological
understanding in its operations. This is very much in tune with the overall motif
of the Jesus of Nazareth project. Theological understanding is priced above the
work of the exegete in spite of being loyal to the dictates of the method applied
by the exegete in biblical studies. In other words, in Ratzinger‟s “Theological
Hermeneutics”, „texts‟ must be approached from a faith standpoint, and through
fervent disposition to the Holy Spirit through whom it was written.55

Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics

This paper does not see Ratzinger‟s criticism of historical critical method
as completely a total condemnation, but a call to its inadequacies and the need to
move beyond it, especially when it comes to issues that border on faith and
scripture. He considers the place of historical research as indeed important to
Christianity since “it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real
historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing supra-historical truths, but
based on history, history that took place here on earth."56 What is therefore
needed is not “a refuge in a supposedly pure literal understanding”, nor “a merely
103
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

positivist, rigid ecclesiasticism,”57 but a „search for corrective factors at better

synthesis between historical and dogmatic methods, criticism and dogma.‟58 More
clearly, “what is needed is a criticism of criticism, developed, not from outside,
but simply from within, from critical thought‟s potential for self-criticism…”59
According to Ratzinger, so far, there seems to have been no “convincing
overall conception that does justice to the positive insights of the historical
method while at the same time transcending its limitations and opening it up into
an appropriate hermeneutic.”60 While Ratzinger acknowledges the enormity of
such task and recognises that such an effort does not yield quick results, he went
ahead to place the task of his theological hermeneutics on that same path.
Ratzinger’s Theological method
The theological method of Ratzinger emphasizes an inclusion of
historical-critical biblical exegesis and a hermeneutic of faith in what he
understood to be a holistic approach to theology and its aspects. Ratzinger‟s
position is essentially an effort that “tried to go beyond purely historical-critical
exegesis so as to apply new methodological insights that allows us to offer a
properly theological interpretation of the Bible.”61 The method, according to him
“requires faith, but the aim unequivocally is not, nor should be, to give up serious
engagement with history.”62 The impression here is that engagement with history
in biblical interpretation is not seriously the problem as the pulling out of that
history the place of God thereby treating „God‟s word‟ as a worldly reality open
to scientific scrutiny for validation and meaning. This mode of scholarship
necessarily subjects traditional exegesis within the confines of pure reason which
would not permit a meaning of history that includes the paramount place of God
in the creation and salvation history of man. In turn, the place of faith and
revealed theological truth become more and more untenable in that order of
reality.
In response to the problem of theology being held within the confines of
a philosophical worldview, of a transfer of modern scientific (natural sciences)
worldview into biblical scholarship and making the Bible lose a voice of its own,
Ratzinger cuts “a couple of paths into the thicket” using the following principles63
which he believes can keep one on track of a theological hermeneutics:
1. Preparation must be required to open up the inner dynamics of the
word… through a sympathetic understanding, a readiness to experience
something new, to be taken along a new path.
2. The exegete must not approach the interpretation of the text with a ready-
made philosophy or with the dictates of a so-called modern or “scientific”
world view, which predetermines what may and may not be.
3. The relationship between event and word must be seen in a new light.
The fact, then, as such, cannot be a vehicle of meaning. Meaning lies
only in the word, and when events themselves seem to be vehicles of
meaning, they must be regarded as illustrations of the word and as

104
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

referring back to it. … Only harmony between the two methods results in
understanding the Bible.
a. Word and event must be regarded as equally original.
b. Whenever the connection between word and event is allowed to drop,
there is no longer any unity in Scripture.
In summary, Ratzinger‟s theological hermeneutics requires that the place
of God in history must be established as concrete. This is because the reality of
the incarnation places the entrance of God into human history in concrete terms in
words and events. Thus the exegete must acknowledge and be ready to work with
the recognition of the place of Jesus as the center of history.64 Secondly a
relationship of continuity that necessarily characterized what God did in the Old
Testament and what happened in the New Testament must be well established. In
other words, there must also be a dedication to uphold the organic unity of the
scripture. According to Ratzinger, it is only by these efforts that an authentic
understanding of Scripture could be attained.

Critique of Ratzinger’s theological hermeneutics

Ratzinger‟s proposal has not gone unchallenged. One of the most
outstanding critics of his view is Gerd Lüdemann, a Professor of the History and
Literature of Early Christianity.65 He strongly opined that historians cannot accept
such a proposal that subjects their work to a metaphysical or meta-historical
statement (of faith) without questions.66 He argues for a critical examination of
testimonies offered by eyewitnesses and sources used as references. These, of
course, include the Gospels as historical sources documented by supposed
eyewitnesses.
As stated earlier in this paper, Ratzinger‟s proposal in establishing a
connection between biblical study tool such as the historical-critical method and
the sustenance of the Christian faith calls on the exegete to be open to the
theologian‟s faith based religious insights. As observed, this view cuts across the
first volume of his Jesus of Nazareth. Therein, Ratzinger sees the nature of
authentic biblical exegesis as that which permits greater allowance of theological
underpinning in its operations. Ratzinger subsequently invites responses to his
proposal. Gerd Lüdemann in his Preface67 wrote that “when the Pope – the leader
and chief spokesman of more than a billion Catholics – publishes a book that
purports to study the life of Jesus of Nazareth, it is both reasonable and requisite
… to examine it and to review its objective value”. Clearly, Lüdemann takes the
Pope‟s work seriously and responds critically. He notes that objectivity based on
available facts ought to supersede personal or group spiritual convictions.
From the outset Lüdemann argues that “the historian is obliged to present
objective evidence for his or her assertions. The rules of the game do not permit
one to rely on uncorroborated testimony or claims of authority.”68 According to
Lüdemann, even Joseph Ratzinger “praises historical method in the highest terms
and lays great stress on its necessity”.69 Therefore, any historian “who fails to
105
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

challenge eyewitness testimony and submit documentary sources to critical

examination … is not an historian.”70 He went further to argue that “the so-called
historical method used by the Pope … has the sole aim of proving the reliability
of the gospels…but the Pope never examines their historical trustworthiness.”71 It
is not surprising then that Lüdemann opens the first chapter of his work with a
statement that, “Ratzinger‟s presupposition that the gospels present accurate
historical accounts is wrongheaded.”72 Be that as it may, there are recent
scholarly works of celebrated authors of no less in importance than Richard
Bauckham73 who also buys the ideas of Ratzinger.
Summarily, Lüdemann‟s main problem with Ratzinger‟s work according
to him, is that Ratzinger implicitly grants the “scholarly consensus that the gospel
portrait of Jesus are artistic compositions, [but] seems to ignore the fact that some
of their dissimilarities amount to mutual contradiction”74 But one must not lose
sight of Ratzinger‟s reservation and point of contention when it comes to
historical-critical method. His main point, which Lüdemann also acknowledges in
his book75 is that the method “does not exhaust the interpretative task for
someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of the Holy Scripture
inspired by God.”76 Therefore, his task is to attempt a purification of the
historical-critical method, and facilitate a return to a faith-informed reading of the
Scripture.

Evaluation of Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics

It is deducible from all that have been said that Ratzinger perceives that
there is no justifiable reason why faith and an impartial historical research on the
life and times of Jesus cannot be conducted.77 What is required in doing that will
be for the historical critical method to be purified and purged of its tendencies to
subjugate theology and issues of faith to categories that do not necessarily apply
to them. In this case, self-criticism of the historical critical method will have to be
geared towards a purification that is aimed at sanitizing the excessive
philosophical weight that has so colored it at the detriment of faith. After all,
what is at the core of the problem "is not a dispute among historians” but a
philosophical one.78What is thus needed is an identification of such philosophies
that give no room for the exercise of faith within a historical-critical research. By
identifying such philosophies and their possible impact on the outcome of the
research, the exegete can then determine the value of such element for the
understanding of Scripture and Tradition.79 There is no doubt that this step is
forward looking in the attainment of results other than the attitude that what is by
reason is that which is right in belief.
Furthermore, the call for a self-examination of historical-critical method
is a call on exegetes who adopt this method to be more open-minded and
reconsider their operational modalities by such method. This task cannot be said
to be an easy one. It requires deep conviction and humility on the part of the
exegete. This is because two key areas that have been held at par will have to be
106
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

given a clear-cut distinction and the loyalty of the exegete to faith must be given a
priority of place over the historical-critical assumptions. One of the results that
will emerge by such efforts will be a discontinuity in the dissection of the
scripture. By so doing, the internal unity of the Bible will once again be retrieved
and for a Christian believer, the unity of the Bible will once again make
meaningful the continuity in the salvation story. For Ratzinger, this effort “does
not contradict historical-critical interpretation, but carries it forward in an organic
way toward becoming theology in the proper sense.”80
Again, an understanding of theological hermeneutic as a hermeneutic of
continuity is a key factor in understanding Ratzinger‟s theological hermeneutics.
He believes that "all the currents of Scripture come together in him [Jesus] that he
is the focal point in terms of which the overall coherence of Scripture comes to
light - everything is waiting for him, everything is moving towards him."81 The
ongoing well understood will translate into acknowledging an allusion to an inner
unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament, and perhaps a link that binds
faith and history. This disposition will help see history from the eye of faith.
While faith and reason or history are separate, they are not in sharp bi-focation
but related in such a way that faith could serve as a purificator to the other.
Through this means, the exegete or the Christian believer is put on the right path
to „see God‟, and establish a better relationship with Jesus through an openness of
reason to the transcendent.
Finally, one of the implications of holding solely to the historical critical
method is a disconnection from the sense of the Scripture. Getting the sense of
the Scripture is intricately connected with the internal unity of the Scripture. “If
you want to understand the Scripture in the spirit in which it is written, you have
to attend to the content and to the unity of Scripture as a whole;”82 this for
Ratzinger is a „datum‟. Since “Jesus attaches great importance to being in
continuity with the Scripture, in continuity with God's history with men,” 83the
place of such significant principle cannot be neglected in the exegesis.
To make the best from the point on continuity mentioned above,
especially in making a comparison of claims in modern theological innovations,
the proposal of Ratzinger "to introduce into the discussion the great proposals of
Patristic and medieval thought”84 is one more way to help keep the Christian or
the exegete on the right track. Given the overall target of maintaining a
relationship with Jesus, modern biblical scholarship must be kept in tandem with
the teachings and practices of the church‟s tradition and Patristic exegesis
alongside the Scriptures. This view will help the Christian or the exegete in
having a strong foothold in the tradition of the church. Secondly, through such
means, the spiritual sense of passages and events being read are discovered.
According to Ratzinger, there is an embedded spiritual sense that underlies the
scripture and it is that within which the unity of the bible is seen; this spiritual
understanding of the relatedness of biblical passages must be upheld in doing a

107
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

theological exegesis. The historical-critical method forecloses this paramount

requirement and thus cannot arrive at any spiritual understanding.

108
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

Conclusion
What Ratzinger proposes as theological hermeneutics is what is needed
in modern times to help Christians sustain their faith within a reasonable footing
in history. The problem, as he said is not with historians but the overloading of
the tool for investigating history with juridical authority to preside over what is
true, acceptable and right in faith. The resultant effect of this exercise has not
been, at the least, an impartial presentation of issues that border on faith.
Obviously, such tools do not possess such juridical power to determine what
should be accepted in faith parlance, thus theology must be freed from such
confines. The proposals of Ratzinger on the one hand, that faith and reason are
not necessarily mutually exclusive but that its exercise only need be refocused,
and that the spiritual sense of the scripture should play a major role in exegetical
exercises, must be taken seriously in an attempt to establish a relationship with
Christ. This paper finds such proposal adequate in turning around the use of the
historical critical method in biblical scholarship for better Christian hermeneutics
that can promote the faith of the individual Christian.

109
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

Notes and References

1 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the
Transfiguration, Vol. 1 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), Preface. A
detail of this expression is explored on page 2 of this paper.
2 The actual name of Pope Benedict XVI, i.e. Joseph Ratzinger shall be used
throughout this work in discussing his contributions to the scholarship
being addressed here. This is especially for the fact that he wrote
concerning his Jesus of Nazareth project that the book is, “… in no way an
exercise of the magisterium, but solely an expression of my personal search
„for the face of the Lord‟ (cf. Ps 27:8).”
3 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the
Transfiguration, Preface. What this paper understands by “clutching at thin
air” is discussed in the second paragraph above, see p.2, par.1-2. The
expression is considered to be the danger in holding unto indefinable or
elusive reality. In this case, clutching at thin air refers to one holding on to
scanty information distilled after dissecting the gospel. Such information is
considered too insufficient and thus too “thin” to establish any “intimacy”
with the Jesus of the Gospels.
4 George Weigel, “Book Excerpt on Jesus of Nazareth”.
http://www.newsweek.com/book-excerpt-jesus-nazareth-100955 (Accessed
October 11, 2015).
5 George Weigel, “Book Excerpt on Jesus of Nazareth”.
6 George Weigel, “Book Excerpt on Jesus of Nazareth”.
7 See the works of Rudolf Schnackenburg, Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical
Christology, Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. (Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) and Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real
Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the
traditional Gospels (New York, HarperCollins Publishers: 1996).
8 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, xii - xiii
9 Schnackenburg was concerned about the crisis of faith of “the believing
Christians who today have been made insecure by scientific research and
critical discussion, so that they may hold fast to faith in the person of Jesus
Christ as the bringer of salvation and Savior of the world.” See Rudolf
Schnackenburg, Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology, Translated by
O. C. Dean, Jr. (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005)
x.
10 Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, xiii.
11 Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, xii.
12 The basic texts for conversation in this paper are Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1,
and “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations

110
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

and Approaches of Exegesis Today” in God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-

Office (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005).
13 Especially the two sources identified as main sources for this paper, see
Notes and Reference #12 above.
14 Cf. Mark 8:29: “who do you say that I am?"
15 Roman 10:13, 6:23
16 Thomas P. Rausch has made a good survey of this development in his
work, Who is Jesus? See, especially his introductory remarks on “images of
Jesus” in Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology (Collegeville,
Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2003)1f
17 Thomas P. Rausch, Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology
(Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2003)3.
18 Thomas P. Rausch, Who is Jesus? 4
19 Tools such as form criticism, source criticism and the redaction criticism in
attempting such distinctions come to mind.
20 See Thomas P. Rausch, who is Jesus? 4 – 8.
21 The main texts of Ratzinger to be engaged in this regard are his „Biblical
Interpretation in Conflict: The Question of the Basic Principles and Path of
Exegesis Today‟ in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, God’s
Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008)91-
126 and the First two volumes of his Jesus of Nazareth project.
22 Schnackenburg stated that the motif for his book is to find an alternative
that will “ultimately seek to be of service in meeting the Jesus Christ who is
alive and continues to live and to ask for us in the present,” (See Rudolf
Schnackenburg, Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology (Louisville,
Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press) ix, but Ratzinger feels that he
was unsuccessful in that task See Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: From
the Baptism in the Jordan. xiv.
23 The term is used to designate shortcomings at initial efforts to engage the
gap created by historical-critical method on the knowledge about Jesus it
produces and the faith of believers that hangs at stake.
24 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus Vol. II
(New York: Doubleday, 1987) 4.
25 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4.
26 Robert M. Price, “Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?” Religious
Studies 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1991). 371.
27 Robert M. Price, “Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?” 371.
28 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the
Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today” in God’s Word:
Scripture-Tradition-Office (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005) 91-126.
The lecture was delivered by the Cardinal on 27 January 1988, at Saint

111
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

Peter's Church, in New York, NY. The document can also be accessed at
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/RATZBIBL.HTM.
29 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis”, 91
30 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis”, 92
31 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis”, 91
32 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis”, 91
33 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis”, 91
34 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis”, 91
35 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1. xvi.
36 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1. xvi
37 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1. xvi
38 Joseph Ratzinger. Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, xvi
39 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol.1, xii. An explanation of the
expression clutching at thin air has been made on page 2 of this paper.
40 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1. xii
41 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 95
42 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 95
43 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 96
44 Ratzinger, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: Vol.1, p. xii
45 Ratzinger, Joseph. God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 126
46 Ratzinger, Joseph. God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 121
47 This definition is given by Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics,
Contemporary” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible,
ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, N.T.
Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 2005), 787.
48 Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary” 787.
49 Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary”, 787
50 Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary”, 787
51 Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary” 788
52 Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary” 788
53 Daniel Treier, “Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary” 787
54 The designations listed here are from the work of Daniel Treier,
“Theological Hermeneutics, Contemporary”, 788
55 This thought is from Dei Verbum, #11‐12, a major Catholic Church
document in which Ratzinger was a major contributor.
56 Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, xv
57 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 99
58 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 99
59 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 100
60 Joseph Ratzinger, God’s Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office, 99

112
Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.97-113

61 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From The Baptism In the Jordan,

xxiii
62 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From The Baptism In the Jordan,
xxiii
63 I have only made a selection of three of those principles in this paper,
details of the principles can be found in “some Basic Elements of a New
Synthesis” in God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office. (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2008), 114 - 126. From 1 to 3b are direct quotation taken
from between pages 114 - 126
64 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis,” 17
65 There are other critiques of Ratzinger‟s work, among which the following
works are good sources for further reading: C. Martini “Ardent Testimony
on Jesus: On the Book Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger/ Benedict
XVI”. In Bulletin Dei Verbum 84/85 (207):44. Luke Johnson, Jesus of
Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration.” In
Modern Theology 24. 2 (2008):318.
66 Gerd Lüdemann, Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus (Santa Rosa,
California: Polebridge Press, 2008), 131.
67 Gerd Lüdemann, Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus, vii.
68 Gerd Lüdemann, Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus, ix.
69 Gerd Lüdemann, Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus, ix.
70 This quotation is accessed from the official Amazon books review of Gerd
Lüdemann. Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus.
http://www.amazon.com/Eyes-That-See-Not-Looks/dp/1598150065.
(Accessed: 13 November 13, 2015).
71 Gerd Lüdemann. Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus.
http://www.amazon.com/Eyes-That-See-Not-Looks/dp/1598150065.
(Accessed: 13 November 13, 2015).
72 Gerd Lüdemann. Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus, 3
73 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as
Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Win. B. Eardmans
Publishing Co., 2006). In the book, the author argues for the veracity of the
four Gospels as rooted authentic eyewitness testimony of those who
personally knew Jesus.
74 Gerd Lüdemann. Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus, x
75 Gerd Lüdemann. Eyes that See Not: The Pope Looks at Jesus, ix
76 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, xvi.
77 Ratzinger notes in The Pierced One that “the historical critical method is
essentially a tool, and its usefulness depends on the way in which it is used.
See Joseph Ratzinger, Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual

113
Joseph Ratzinger’s Theological Hermeneutics Ilesanmi G. Ajibola

Christology, Trasl. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984)

42.
78 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis” 113
79 In Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology
Ratzinger states the thesis: "The historical-critical method and other
modern scientific methods are important for an understanding of Holy
Scripture and Tradition. Their value, however, depends on the
hermeneutical (philosophical) context in which they are applied." Behold
the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology, 42
80 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From The Baptism in the Jordan, xix
81 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From The Baptism In the Jordan,
246
82 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol.1, xviii referring to the American
scholars development of ‘canonical exegesis’ project
83 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol.1, xviii
84 Joseph Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crises” 125

114